Civilization on this Planet

Originally posted by golemina
I think you can also add another name to this list of searchers of the truth...

Immanuel Velikovsky

another good edition to the thread! i went searching and found a little more on him:

Immanuel Velikovsky
After reaching the number 1 spot in the best-sellers list, Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision was banned from a number of academic institutions, and
creating an unprecedented scientific debacle that became known as The Velikovsky Affair.

Many scientists and historians have criticised Velikovsky's works over the years, unfortunately, many have done so inaccurately resulting in the
public's misconception that Velikovsky was "completely proved wrong".

sounds like another case of sensorship by mainstream academics. i think i'm going to have to read "Worlds in Collision" for myself. thanks for
contributing golemina!

Originally posted by snafu7700
the question is whether or not such a suppository would actually live through all of the climactic changes of this world over an extended period of
time.

What a horrifying image.....

Apologies for being completely OT, but the use of the words there is about the funniest mistake I have seen on an internet forum ever. Check a
dictionary definition of a "suppository", and then compare what I think you meant:
"respository". Then get back up off the floor once you stop laughing.

Anyway, sorry, back to the thread. I trust the mods have humour enough for this digression.

Darn i like this guy(Immanuel Velikovsky) theory lol. Is it me or it was easier to publish stuff like that before the 90 s.I mean since the 90s
information is soo stuck up and plain normality , well everything beside internet tho.
I like how he expose how some biblical fact are not matching with neiberhood culture at the soo called moment in our history... once again.
The only problem is when you see venus passing around and the whole planetary thing, most ppl will dig their head deep into the sand at this point. I
dont know what to think of the jupiter and venus thing and to be honest i red somthing about this a few days ago. I need to rest lol, my head is once
again boiling :/

Originally posted by snafu7700
how many times have we, on this planet, risen to our current level of technological advancement only to be lost again into the abyss of ignorance?

Never before. And proveably so.

there is no doubt that glaciers covered much of the most livable parts of the world (areas in which large civilizations are likely to
form),

Actually, the ice shields covered the Earth only to about the level of Chicago. Now, I consider Chicago uninhabitable, but others disagre. This is a
proveable limit to the glaciers... they leave a lot of traces.

this theory (and again, as i have no proof, i am simply putting it forth as MHO) would explain alot of anomolies that mainstream science either
ignores or attempts to explain away as "natural."

Could you cite some references and show how they're determined to be anomalous? Too often they are only "anomalous" to people who haven't studied
them in depth. For instance, the idea of an 8 foot tall athlete is really anomalous to me... bgrut I believe that many who follow sports can list a
whole slew of them.

this would also explain theories of civilizations such as the atlanteans.

Have you actually read Plato and what he said?

the Maya believed that the world goes through such cycles (and obviously many of you as well, considering all of the 2012 threads out there),
so why is it so hard for our modern world to believe the same?

Because many people read a book or an article or two, dismiss any work except that one thing they read, don't bother to track down or see the things
for themselves. And they scoff at the people who have spent half a lifetime completely immersed in the studies as "evil academics" who
can't/won't see the truth.

Our true origins are far more interesting than nonexistant civilizations that "rose and fell." Humanity has a rich and fascinating tale, full of
dark and interesting things. But it's a tale of constant progress -- and I'm afraid a lot of people aren't willing to give ol' homo sapiens any
credit in its ability to avoid extinction and keep going forward technologically in the face of many challenges.

ok, then please prove it....beyond the shadow of a doubt i mean, in a way in which there are no "missing links" to account for.

Actually, the ice shields covered the Earth only to about the level of Chicago. Now, I consider Chicago uninhabitable, but others disagre. This is a
proveable limit to the glaciers... they leave a lot of traces.

first, i said "much of the most livable parts of the world." second, you forget to mention that they included all of canada, all of new
england including most of new york state...not to mention the majority of northern europe. lets be fair here byrd, that's a pretty sizable chunk of
the world's population centers. and of course, we could go into the theories of continental shifts and polar reversals, in which frozen lands would
have been warm, and vice versa.

Could you cite some references and show how they're determined to be anomalous?

i clearly state "and again, as i have no proof, i am simply putting it forth as MHO." so why exactly would you attack this particular point?
especially when you know as well as i, having participated in the threads (in much the same capacity that you are participating here), that
many of them have been discussed here before and there are dozens of threads dedicated to them. i will not be baited into sidetracking the discussion
with a debate over their validity. the whole point is to discuss the possibility, not go off on a tangent which will simply end up as your opinion
verses mine, as neither is really proveable concretely. there are many other threads out there that do just that, and if it is what you wish then i
would appreciate it if you would do it on one of them. as i mentioned at the beginning of this thread byrd, "so please feel free to pick it apart
with knowledgeable thoughts of your own....but please try to keep an open mind as you do so." so far, your mind has not been very open here.

Have you actually read Plato and what he said?

you know i have, and yes it can be construed as a story. but as has been pointed out to you and many others in the atlantas threads, we have been
finding out that alot of myths are based on fact. troy ring a bell?

funny a mod should attack that particular point on a site in which atlantis has its own forum. dont get me wrong, you have just as much right to an
opinion as everyone else here, it just strikes me as slightly hypocritical.

Because many people read a book or an article or two, dismiss any work except that one thing they read, don't bother to track down or see the things
for themselves.

and there are many out there who are part of the scientific community, and have done the exact same thing to others outside of the mainstream
community. people who dedicate their time and energy to alternative historical research will be ridiculed for said research. which is exactly the
point of this thread: mainstream science will not lower itself to truly investigate these possiblities, so we will never know unless we take it upon
ourselves to find out...and that requires discussion. hence the thread.

And they scoff at the people who have spent half a lifetime completely immersed in the studies as "evil academics" who can't/won't see the
truth.

and what of those who spent "half a lifetime" or all of their lives investigating the issue, only to be ridiculed for it? and nobody called
mainstream scientists "evil academics", i'm merely stating that they refuse to open their collective minds to the possibility. ask yourself why
you are doing the same.

Our true origins are far more interesting than nonexistant civilizations that "rose and fell."

you miss the point. i'm not talking about a few civilizations here and there. i'm talking about worldwide destruction on a cyclic basis.

you obviously disagree with this whole premise, as you are entitled. however, at least give it the respect it deserves as a topic in the "ancient
civilizations" forum in the "conspiracy" section of ATS, and make an attempt to read the material presented and actually think about it before
attempting to rip it to shreds.

first, i said "much of the most livable parts of the world." second, you forget to mention that they included all of canada, all of new england
including most of new york state...not to mention the majority of northern europe. lets be fair here byrd, that's a pretty sizable chunk of the
world's population centers. and of course, we could go into the theories of continental shifts and polar reversals, in which frozen lands would have
been warm, and vice versa.

incidentally do you happen to know what the total world population was a tthe end of the ice age
its currently 6 1/2 billion
heres a few for you to choose from
1 3 billion
2. 1 billion
3 100 million
4 50 million
5 5 million

Originally posted by Marduk
incidentally do you happen to know what the total world population was a tthe end of the ice age
its currently 6 1/2 billion
heres a few for you to choose from
1 3 billion
2. 1 billion
3 100 million
4 50 million
5 5 million

a better question would be why are you attempting to hijack the thread with numbers like 5 million that cannot under any circumstances be accurately
projected on the limited data we have today. another perfect example of how guesses become the accepted facts because they fit the preconceived
notion when in actuality, no one knows for certain. of course, it's pretty damned obvious that youre going to have a small population after an ice
age.

you disagree with the theory, fine. i guess you didnt read the part in which i said "this is simply my humble opinion." if you dont like it, move
on to something else.

so marduk, would you like to discuss the theories presented in my thread or continue with these juvenile attempts to sidetrack the thread into a
debate of the (highly questionable) scientific analysis?

your claim that the worlds surface was covered with Glacial Ice is untenable
but you wouldn't accept that. thats an ignorant position to take when someone more knowledgable than you has tried to tell you better and you didn't
listen.
Kasparov is ignorant if he's attempting to denegrate modern historians by criticising a book that was written over 200 years ago
you are again therefore ignorant for championing his ideas and the fact that he is not a historian of any kind seems lost on you

the fact that you don't know that the entire human population of earth was less than the current population of london (6 million) and so are claiming
that its impossible for them to exist on a planet that was no where near covered with ice suggests to me that you don't know any of the facts which
is another example of your ignorance
denying Ignorance is the website motto
you're ignorant so I'm denying you
its that simple

want to take your ignorance further go ahead
theres plenty of websites where this brand of crap is welcomed and where you can rage against people more qualified and more knowledgable than you'll
ever be
but this one isn't it

look its very simple really but your desire to see modern historians pilloried prevents you from seeing it
you have
1) the Roman data that provided the facts was incorrect
2) The Author got it incorrect
3) Kasparov got it incorrect

you need to balance these three possibilities against

1) every historian who's ever lived has got the entire history of civilisation incorrect
this website may help you discover the truth en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor

then perhaps you can provide an unimpeachable explanation of how they were built? and by the by, i know a little something of the
fossils which you mentioned, and you are being just a tad shady with the truth. they are seaborn fossils and shells found around the lower part of
the structure (not inside the limestone blocks), which actually further proves the point that the pyramids are likely much older than
mainstream science will admit, as it suggests a major flood or rise in the worlds oceans unlike anything in recorded history.

You've at least revealed you know nothing about geology

Which presumably means you won't believe anything a geologist tells you? Like how
comparisons of features in the pyramid stones enable us to pinpoint exact which rock strata and which quarry they came from.

Or maybe the Egyptians also terraformed their entire landscape, creating whole ranges of hills and cliffs and laid down the bedrock on which the
pyramids were built etc ?

(btw what sort of fossils would expect to find in limestone other than those of sea creatures, primarily shells?

The one thing that amazed me about the Mayans was their deity with the elongated skull and a complexion of white skin. Could that be an evolved form
of human that wanted to send the human race a warning without being so explicit?

Another thing that confuses me about the Mayans is that they were so advanced in science or at least astronomy which required at least some forms of
reason & logic and yet they were insane with their rituals of sacrifice. I find it hard to believe that as a culture all by themselves they advanced
further than we have in astronomy without at least some outside help from someone or something.

It just doesn't make sense to me that they on one hand would have these primitive sacrifices of their own people to placate the "sun god" and yet
be so highly intelligent and logical when it comes to science?

I'd be quite interested what Gary Kasparov knows about geology as well seeing as he made the claim in the first place
but you know when you think about it Kasparov got his ass kicked playing chess in Israel so perhaps the Israelis have an answer to the history of
civilisation
err no I just checked and their explanation is the most bizarre yet
I'm not too sure I got the entire gist of it but apparently some guy called Godfrey built the earth in seven days and then populated it starting with
two people in a garden who fed on some weird fruit from a tree encouraged to do so by a talking snake
if thats gotta make sense all bets are off

The one thing that amazed me about the Mayans was their deity with the elongated skull and a complexion of white skin. Could that be an evolved form
of human that wanted to send the human race a warning without being so explicit?

Another thing that confuses me about the Mayans is that they were so advanced in science or at least astronomy which required at least some forms of
reason & logic and yet they were insane with their rituals of sacrifice. I find it hard to believe that as a culture all by themselves they advanced
further than we have in astronomy without at least some outside help from someone or something.

the Mayans had no deity with an elongated skull and whgite skin so you need no longer be amazed
the mayans were not at all advanced in astronomy
the mesopotamians were more advanced than they were thousands of years earlier
no ancient world culture knew of more than five planets
basically you've been reading the wrong information which is why you are confused
had you read the correct information about these peoples you wouldn't be
this is what I meant when I said that people who are into pseudoscience and alternative history are wasting their time
you might as well read a good sci fi novel for what you can learn from it factually is about the same

That doesn't explain the rest on that paranormal page though does it? It may appear that with these cycles the Mayans speak of rise other intelligent
beings not unlike our own species. It may in fact be humans repeating these cycles over and over again.

It may take us an entire cycle to get to where we are today only to be brought down and have to rebuild again. Maybe the last time was a combination
of geological events and war that made the previous humans try something different. Something like religion to keep us in line this time only to find
out we are doomed to repeat ourselves?

If 2012 does come to pass and the Mayans are correct they said that there are 5 great cycles and we are in the 4th. How in the heck do or did they
know about the other 3 and what will the 5th bring?

do you know how to build your own permanent shelter that will remain structurally sound for generations? carpenters do, but what about the rest of
us? do you know how to grow your own food, can or otherwise preserve it, and save some for the next years planting? farmers do, but what about the
rest of us?

I once grew tomatos in my backyard. They sucked.

well think about this my friends: glaciers have a tendency to completely destroy anything manmade due to their size and movements.....literally
crushing anything in their paths. iron and other metals are torn apart and eventually rust into oblivion. brick buildings are torn apart and turned
back into the simple elements they were made from. our seas hide all kinds of unknown artifacts that, when brought to the light of day, are explained
by mainstream scientists as "normal rock formations."

It is pretty amazing how quickly nature can erase our present. In college, I went on an archaeological dig in north Georgia in a place that had been
many things. It started as a Native American town. Then in the 1800's it became a manufacturing center for hide tanning. If you looked at the old
pictures, you saw a massive brick factory, storefronts and all the usual evidence of a thriving industrial town.
Today, it's nearly all forest. The only visible, above ground evidence of its existence are three stone pillars that were the braces for the
second floor of the factory. Two major floods later, the town was abandoned to the wild. And practically nothing was left.

So, yes, nature can erase quite effectively.

even other theories on this site that are called "quacky", such as strange rock formations on the moon that suggest intentional arrangement, or
strange lines on mars that suggest mining operations. maybe they appear the way they do because we've already been there, and such anomolous
propagations are simply our own artifacts from previous technologically advanced civilizations that explored and attempted to set up mining
operations on both celestial bodies.

Here's where your theory stretches credulity.

I'm not saying that civilizations have been wiped out; we have plenty of evidence of that happening. And I'm not saying that certain levels of
technology may have been achieved in ancient times -- I think there is mounting evidence that the Egyptians at least experimented with an idea of
battery power -- although not in our modern concept.

But not matter the glaciers, or the cataclysm, if any civilization achieved levels of sophistication that brought them to the moon or mars, then we
sure as heck would have found evidence of that. Plastics alone take 500 years just to partially decay -- and that's on land -- it can take
expoentially longer underwater. And certain polymers we've developed, because of the tight atomic bond, can take millions of years. There is
speculation that the average desktop computer created today could literally take 5 to 6 million years to completely biodegrade. So if our ancient
ancestors were rocketing to the moon, combined with the technology needed for such an endeavor, we would have found at least left over motherboards or
microchips or other technologically advance evidence beyond uranium deposits that "looked like they were mined."

Oh no, you cited the 'razor' (gulp)... does that make EVERYTHING that comes to your mind the gospel according to Marduk?

Hardly.

Please... If there is one thing that is demonstrated at ATS EVERY day... is that a tool... is only as useful as the person wielding it.

Why is it necessary to mount such an attack Marduk?

There are a lot of deficiencies in the human record as its served up.

It comes from a huge number of causes.

It exists in ABSOLUTELY EVERY area of human endeavor.

Among those causes are some of the following...

- Having an agenda.
- Having a bias.
- Not using the necessary rigor to understand the limits on interpolation/extrapolation possible based on a given data sampling.
- Using an existing flawed theoretical basis as a starting point.
- Not being able to apply/understand the progression of an approach/drift in comprehension when looking at raw data/hypotheses.

I could add to this list for days. It's quite endless... as maybe alluded to by our friend Einstein.

There are a couple of special causes that are especially ironic...

I call one of those the 98/2 (and within that yet another 98/2

).

What is that? Glad you ask.

Much like in Kornbluths March of the Morons. Some of us flat out just don't have the horsepower to get the job done. Much in the vein of getting
enough monkeys to type...

What do you get? Do I REALLY need to answer that?

Based on your 'responses'... yes!

Just look around you... (It's an inside joke

I'll explain it to you... if you want/need. )

Here is the other...

A basic flaw in human reasoning.

Our minds are SO primitive... we are INCAPABLE of seeing oftentimes that dogmatic nature causes us to ask questions in such a way as to presuppose the
answer.

That would be a real hindrance...

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there.

Our internal processes are SO flawed... that are brains simply REFUSE TO SEE anything that might disagree/conflict with said hypothesis in the
making.

Talk about your self-fulfilling prophecies!

So the moral of the story Marduk...

Climb down of that ivory tower soapbox of yours... And let's have a REAL discussion.

You were saying Snafu...

(Please don't be so hard on the Byrd Snaf... He's a little old-fashioned, but a really nice guy.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.